maori-issues

NEW ZEALAND – New Zealand is negotiating a new border arrangement with the United States that could require the sharing of New Zealanders’ biometric data-such as fingerprints and faceprints-as a condition of staying in the US visa waiver programme, prompting alarm from Māori advocates and privacy-focused citizens over where sensitive data could go and who could access it.

The negotiations relate to an Enhanced Border Security Partnership (EBSP) proposed by the US Department of Homeland Security, which the US has asked participating visa waiver countries to negotiate within a year. New Zealand is one of 42 countries in the programme, which allows citizens to visit the US without a visa for up to 90 days under the long‑running US Visa Waiver Program, administered through systems such as the Electronic System for Travel Authorization.

While the talks have been framed as identification verification and border management, Māori voices have raised cultural concerns alongside security and privacy risks, arguing that biometric data and DNA can be considered taonga-an object or concept of profound value-bringing obligations of protection and governance that do not map neatly onto cross-border data exchange or existing privacy regimes in either country.

Border data negotiations collide with cultural and privacy governance

The EBSP discussions intersect with New Zealand’s domestic legal duties around personal information, which are primarily set out in the Privacy Act 2020. That law places obligations on agencies when collecting, using, and disclosing personal information, including when data is transferred overseas, and is being updated further through recent amendments aimed at tightening rules on indirect collection of information.

Rotorua resident Te Kawana Tapara said he was alarmed to learn of the negotiations and launched a petition calling for safeguards to be built into any EBSP arrangement, including full public and parliamentary scrutiny before anything is signed.

“When I look at the Enhanced Border Security Partnership proposal, I see a flawed design – a structure with no walls to protect the most intimate data of our people. My DNA is my whakapapa; it is not a travel perk to be traded away.”

Tapara said he approached his local MP and Green Party co-leader Chlöe Swarbrick with concerns spanning jurisdictional risk, Māori data sovereignty, and surveillance overreach.

“[We need to] have localised management guardrails in place so that we actually know what’s happening and where our information is going. But more particularly around having a Māori say around the table because, pretty much, our people will be affected in the long-term,” he said.

For Vincent Olsen-Reeder, described as a data security conscious citizen, the closed-door nature of negotiations was itself a central concern. He said he had been moving away from major technology platforms due to security and privacy issues, switching to alternative digital services and platforms, and the US talks raised red flags for him.

“This EBSP convo has been caught up in nation security and that worries me for two reasons: We should know about what’s happening with our data and we should be able to – as voters and as citizens – see that conversation,” Olsen-Reeder said.

“The second thing is, why is this so caught up in national security? Why is this so connected to defence? Why is this so connected to things that feel very connected to troops on the ground?” he added.

Why entertainment businesses are watching data rules at the border

For the entertainment industry, the practical stakes of border policy extend beyond tourism. Short-notice, short-duration travel under visa waiver settings is a recurring operational requirement for touring performers, film and television talent, international press, sales executives, and technical crew moving between markets for festivals, premieres, showcases, and business negotiations.

A shift in what information governments require-or can request from other governments-can influence how companies assess compliance risk and duty of care, particularly where sensitive data is involved. In international production and touring, where schedules are rigid and contingencies expensive, policy changes can also reshape planning assumptions around mobility, documentation, and privacy protocols.

In this case, the domestic debate is being driven not only by data security arguments, but by Māori governance principles that treat DNA and related identifiers as culturally protected-an approach that can require a different standard of consent, oversight, and accountability than typical cross-border administrative data sharing. For businesses whose Māori staff, artists, and partners travel regularly, those expectations are increasingly being treated as part of organisational risk management rather than a niche cultural issue.

“Māori data is a taonga”: DNA and biometric identifiers as protected value

Māori data sovereignty expert Dr Karaitiana Taiuru said there were specific concerns for Māori in relation to DNA, which he described as a taonga.

“For Māori and for many other indigenous peoples, our DNA is sacred to us. It’s not just this generation’s knowledge, it’s our previous generations and our future generations, so it’s very sacred,” Taiuru said.

He also raised concerns about the consequences of sharing police databases, noting over-policing, profiling, and surveillance Māori have been subject to in Aotearoa.

“We know from reports over decades there has been an institutional racism issue in the past with the New Zealand Police. Automatically, that data is going to be biased, it’s going to be racist,” Taiuru said.

“There’s going to be some very sensitive information in those police files. What happens if someone has been proven innocent by the police? Would that data show up if it’s shared overseas, for example. What about survivors and victims of abuse? They’re entitled to privacy as well.

“Some major questions need to be asked about people’s privacy and our own laws,” he said.

A Māori data governance model-and an AI-era framework-are being cited as guardrails

Te Kāhui Raraunga, described as a data-focused operational arm of the National Iwi Chairs Forum, said Māori data required “culturally grounded models of protection and care”.

The group said it led a co-design process in 2020 that included Māori leaders, representatives of Māori organisations with data interests, Māori data experts, and 16 Crown agencies to produce a Māori data governance model, supported by Stats NZ.

“The model is intended to assist all agencies to undertake Māori data governance in a way that is values-led, centred on Māori needs and priorities, and informed by research,” the group said in a statement.

The group also said that, in October 2025, it added a framework aimed at protecting Māori data use in the rising age of AI.

Lead technician Kirikowhai Mikaere urged the government to apply the model and framework to any considerations around collection, storage, and use of Māori data.

“This includes biometric data which is the focus of the Enhanced Border Security Partnership,” she said.

“Māori data is a taonga and Māori have authority over our data – regardless of storage location or data processing jurisdiction.

“Māori data requires culturally grounded governance approaches that protect Māori data sovereignty and uphold te Tiriti o Waitangi obligations,” Mikaere said.

Those obligations sit alongside New Zealand’s wider privacy and data protection system, which is overseen by the independent Office of the Privacy Commissioner and, in the case of cross-border transfers, increasingly needs to line up with international expectations so that data can continue to move between jurisdictions without breaching local law.

Foreign Affairs Ministry: talks aimed at clarifying the US request

A spokesperson for New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade said the US periodically reviewed and updated requirements for participation in its visa waiver programme and described the EBSP as one such update.

“In our discussions, we are trying to clarify the US request and explain New Zealand’s legislative settings. Once these matters are clarified, officials will provide Ministers with advice on what would be involved,” the spokesperson said.